Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25802529›Full record

ArticleStem cells international2015

Improvement of In Vitro Osteogenic Potential through Differentiation of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells from Human Exfoliated Dental Tissue towards Mesenchymal-Like Stem Cells.

Felipe Augusto Andre Ishiy, Roberto Dalto Fanganiello, Karina Griesi-Oliveira, Angela May Suzuki, Gerson Shigeru Kobayashi, Andressa Gois Morales, Luciane Portas Capelo, Maria Rita Passos-Bueno

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Stem cells international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Felipe Augusto Andre IshiyDepartment of Genetics and Evolution, Institute of Bioscience, University of Sao Paulo, 05508-090 Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Roberto Dalto FanganielloDepartment of Genetics and Evolution, Institute of Bioscience, University of Sao Paulo, 05508-090 Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Karina Griesi-OliveiraDepartment of Genetics and Evolution, Institute of Bioscience, University of Sao Paulo, 05508-090 Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Angela May SuzukiDepartment of Genetics and Evolution, Institute of Bioscience, University of Sao Paulo, 05508-090 Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Gerson Shigeru KobayashiDepartment of Genetics and Evolution, Institute of Bioscience, University of Sao Paulo, 05508-090 Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Andressa Gois MoralesDepartment of Genetics and Evolution, Institute of Bioscience, University of Sao Paulo, 05508-090 Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Luciane Portas CapeloScience and Technology Institute, Federal University of Sao Paulo, 12247-014 Sao Jose dos Campos, SP, Brazil.
Maria Rita Passos-BuenoDepartment of Genetics and Evolution, Institute of Bioscience, University of Sao Paulo, 05508-090 Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Constraints for the application of MSCs for bone reconstruction include restricted self-renewal and limited cell amounts. iPSC technology presents advantages over MSCs, providing homogeneous cellular populations with prolonged self-renewal and higher plasticity. However, it is unknown if the osteogenic potential of iPSCs differs from that of MSCs and if it depends on the iPSCs originating cellular source. Here, we compared the in vitro osteogenesis between stem cells from human deciduous teeth (SHED) and MSC-like cells from iPSCs from SHED (iPS-SHED) and from human dermal fibroblasts (iPS-FIB). MSC-like cells from iPS-SHED and iPS-FIB displayed fibroblast-like morphology, downregulation of pluripotency markers and upregulation of mesenchymal markers. Comparative in vitro osteogenesis analysis showed higher osteogenic potential in MSC-like cells from iPS-SHED followed by MSC-like cells from iPS-FIB and SHED. CD105 expression, reported to be inversely correlated with osteogenic potential in MSCs, did not display this pattern, considering that SHED presented lower CD105 expression. Higher osteogenic potential of MSC-like cells from iPS-SHED may be due to cellular homogeneity and/or to donor tissue epigenetic memory. Our findings strengthen the rationale for the use of iPSCs in bone bioengineering. Unveiling the molecular basis behind these differences is important for a thorough use of iPSCs in clinical scenarios.

Identifiers

PMID25802529
PMCPMC4329829

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.